Cut (2000) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)
Y'know, the Scream series was kinda fresh when it came out, but how many movies can they make which are either
  • a. slasher movies about people making slasher movies, or
  • b. slasher movies where the characters analyze their fates by referring to the conventions of the slasher movie genre
It seems like there are a lot of these, and they all are about half serious (except Scary Movie), and they are all so self-referential that they not only refer to other slasher films, but they feel a need to drop names like Godard and Hitchcock and DeNiro as well. They are like senior film projects meant to be watched by other people who are also making film projects, trying to impress everyone with their name-dropping.

NUDITY REPORT
none. Two shower scenes well obscured by the shower glass.
And, in fact, a couple of these lately have actually been about people making their senior film projects. The last one I saw was the American film, "Urban Legends- Final Cut", and this one is an Aussie film that is pretty much the same movie, except not as Hollywood slick and a bit wittier, and with some silly supernatural elements added. And both of them are pretty much the same movie as Scream 3. And I just can't come up with a good reason to watch any of the above.

Why is it in slasher films that the female victims scream to the masked killer - "get away from me"? Does saying that ever help? I would like to see the killer say, "oh, OK", and walk away casually.

The best variation I saw on the serial death theme in the past year was Final Destination, which is the one you want to see if you really want to see one.

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Widescreen anamorphic, 1.85:1

  • no meaningful features
By the way:
  • Insideout UK thought it was a hoot, and said "it's so knowingly bad that it ...attains a perverse brilliance"
  • Molly Ringwald is in this film, and it looks like she now tips the scales with about 40 extra pounds since I saw her last. She now looks like Bette Midler.

The Critics Vote

  • Consensus: two stars: BBC 2/5, Insideout UK 3/5.

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 4.5.
  • Aussie movie. Has been playing overseas. Now playing in Estonia, making it perhaps the first Australian movie ever to appear in Estonia before it gets to the USA.
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is somewhere in the range of C- to D. I'm not sure, but I think genre fans may think it's OK, but there's nothing new, so even they might hate it.

Return to the Movie House home page